(1.) this petition involves a neat controversy in so far as the petitioners were admittedly appointed on a temporary basis around the years 1987-88 by the respondent 1-zilla parishad as typists, stenographers, etc. It was their contention that they approached the court in the year 1990 through this petition, that their continuance in service has been recommended by the zilla parishad but more importantly, that they have been continuously in a state of insecurity because of the fact that they were being reappointed for various temporary periods with a break on each occasion thereby creating a situation whereunder the petitioners would be discontinued at any time. Secondly, what was pointed out by them was that insofar as they were effectively employed on a daily wages basis, that their aggregate emoluments were far less than what they would have normally received for the same work had they been holding a regular post. The two-fold relief that is claimed in the petition is that their services should not be terminated and secondly, that they should be awarded or paid the salary that is equal to that which a regular appointed employee would receive insofar as they are performing the same job functions and would therefore be entitled to such parity on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work. Notice was issued to the respondents and the terminations were stayed after which, the petition has come before the court only today. In the meanwhile, some of the petitioners have secured employment elsewhere and therefore the relief that is prayed for today is limited only to petitioner nos. 3, 5 and 7.
(2.) the respondents have filed their reply in which they pointout that admittedly the employments were for temporary periods of time and the contention taken up is that the employment was made by the zilla parishad in which body there vested no power to make such appointments. The learned government Advocate who represents the respondents therefor submitted that the petitioners are totally disqualified from any relief as no rights can flow from the original appointment order. In support of his contention he drew my attention to Section 173 of the Karnataka zilla parishads, taluk panchayat samithis, mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats Act, 1983 and in particular to the amended sub-section (4) of Section 173 whereunder the government has prescribed a regular machinery in whom the powers of recruitment are vested. Admittedly, when the petitioners were employed, this machinery was not in existence but the learned government Advocate submits that the power at that time vested in the government insofar as it was only open to the government to either delegate its power or more importantly, to send various employees on deputation or to otherwise regulate the manner in which the zilla panchayat employees were to be recruited. In sum and substance, the learned government Advocate submitted that it is impermissible to uphold the contention raised by the petitioners that they are entitled to any regularisation since the source of their employment is irregular. Reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mysore state road transport corporation v gopinath gundachar, wherein, the Supreme Court disallowed the claim of an employee of the Mysore state road transport corporation who had been given a temporary and ad hoc appointment and who contended that he had secured rights to the post and therefore resisted the advertisement being issued for recruitment of other persons.
(3.) the main contention put forward by the petitioners'learned Advocate is that the courts have examined similar situations over a period of time and that they have, as of necessity, taken into account the situation that prevailed during the interim period when there is nobody entrusted with the power of recruiting the employee. The petitioners' learned Advocate drew my attention to the observation's of the Supreme Court in the decision supra as also to the decisions in t. Cajee v u. Jormanik siem and another and v.t. khanzode and others v reserve bank of India and another . He also drew my attention to the observations of the Supreme Court to the decision in ramesh prasad singh v state of Bihar and others , wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to uphold a situation whereby a temporary post has been created and to also observe that in situations of such a type, that the principle of equal pay for equal work could still be applicable. What is submitted on the basis of these decisions is that admittedly at the point of time when the petitioners came to be appointed, the government had not set up the requisite machinery for recruitment of employment to this zilla parishad. The zilla parishad being an independent statutory authority which is required to perform certain functions necessarily requires the assistance of employees. Petitioners' learned counsel submits that if for this purpose they have made appointments, that the courts have upheld the power vested in that body to make such appointments. He further submits that the appointments are necessarily made on the basis of suitability, qualification, etc. And if the record indicates that the employees did meet the requirements, then the prefix to those orders that they are temporary or that they are for a limited period of time will have to be ignored. Also, what he submits is that if by implication the orders will have to be construed as a due exercise of power and regular appointment, then the petitioners would be entitled to claim the regular salaries that are attached to those posts.